As per case facts, a partition suit led to an interim injunction. The original defendant transferred parts of his property to a minor appellant, who then sought impleadment and filed ... an injunction application. The Trial Court dismissed both the plaintiff's and the appellant's injunction requests. The present appeal challenged the dismissal of the appellant's injunction. The central legal question arose whether the minor appellant was properly represented by his mother as next friend and if the Trial Judge was justified in refusing to grant the injunction on merits. Finally, the High Court held that the minor appellant's representation by his mother as next friend was valid, as Order XXXII is secular. On merits, the court found the Trial Judge's reasoning contradictory and reiterated that merely obtaining conversion and sanction plans doesn't grant the right to build on joint property, especially when construction had not substantially begun. The court allowed the appellant's injunction to maintain the property's status quo.